I have been nothing but impressed with the 18-135, and it's compactness is a huge win for me, as that's one reason I got an APC camera. The 18-135 and the 1.8 35mm as a compact prime, covers all my needs so far.
Re-watching this video in July 2019. Your comment on the price of the 18-135 will come down and become close to the 18-105 was dead on. Good job! Always enjoy your videos, keep up the the good work.
Peak edge to edge sharpness for the 18-105 is f5.6 at 18mm, and f8 at 105mm. The aperture is going to affect the sharpness more than the focal length; just something to keep in mind when comparing lenses like this.
Thanks for doing this comparison. I couldn't decide between these two and wound up taking a chance with the 18-135. I love it and your review shows me that I'm not really missing anything with the 18-105. Not into making videos so the 18-135 is perfect for me....Your reviews are great.
Wow! This result is really amazing, I thought that the quality of the G lens will be better than the 135 lens, but it seems that each has its own advantages. Thank you for taking this video! And your conclusion is also great, it is very useful to me.
If I had the 18-105 I likely wouldn't change but since I don't I'm going for the 18-135 for my a6000. As a hiker who never gets out without a camera, the weight savings alone makes the decision a no-brainer. And that it's a try 18mm for landscapes is also a deciding factor. I am so glad I waited for this lens.
I was so hooked on the comparison and was bashing my head out with the whole photo comparison progress and then you dropped that 105 was superior for video and all my problems went away.
You catched all the important points that I was interested for. • The comparison of the photo quality of both lenses. • And the point about the video. Your video helped me to make a decision. Thank you
@@IRFAN-po5sz I decided for 18-105, because the light sensitivy stays always at 4. Means, it doesn´t getting lighter or darker, if you´re zooming. And it´s perfect for videos. If you zoom, it´s always smooth. Zoom is also controlable by remote control. The zoom at 18-135 is not controlable by remote control.
I am glad to see this video and I think I made decision - 18-105 mm f/4. Two main advantages; constant aperture and constant lens length (for video and gimbal use). Aside that, it is good that 18-105 is sharper at the edges, although not an issue for video, especially during panning. Thanks.
Oh! You live in Austin. I’m not sure how I missed that in all of your previous videos. Always great to see the 360 bridge in photos (I now live in Dallas and miss Austin a lot). Great review on the two lenses. I own the 18-105 and noticed a huge jump in quality over the 55-210 I had bought previously. Much bigger difference than the 18-135 which I also considered buying at the time. I opted for the 18-105 for the video capabilities you mentioned. Thanks for the great review as always!
- 18-135mm is sharper in the range of 18-50mm while 18-105mm is sharper in in the range of 70-100mm. - 18-105mm is definitely better for video because of constant f/4 aperture and power zoom in/out Though not sure how much close we can get for the extra 30mm. I would also suggest you to compare this in your videos as that is also another factor to decide.
I finally went for the 18-135mm and am very happy with it. I knew for the start that the different between constant apreture vs variable. But honestly, I don't think any one would shot within one video have to zoom between 18mm-135mm very often. At least to me almost never happen In contrast, the form factor has a ignificant impact. I would much enjoy a small size/weight and it's a benefit that you have all the time. So instead of worrying F/4 vs F3.5-5.6 (it's not a huge different anyway), better to get a 18-135mm. At least I definitely felt it's a right choice for me.
I’ve been watching you for a while now and appreciate your experience and opinions - your wife is a saint! All of that micro examination :) she’s def a keeper!
Thank you! I must confess just looking at the first two images I was blown away by the difference in colour and in contrast. Although I must confess the 18-135 mm seems to be a better option just looking at the lens, not the price tag, with a little more reach, smaller format and while the photos show it may be a little sharper at the wide end. The colour and contrast makes me want to go for the 18-105 mm, do doubt about it!
Thank you so much for your videos. They have been extremely helpful in making decisions. Tell your wife thank you as well! Bless her for being you subject in everything. She's a champion.
I received the 18-135 two weeks ago, tried it out, and found it wasn't as good as my 18-105. So sent it back. Gave it another try and ordered another 18-135 lens and this time the stills blew me away. Much sharper than my 18-105. This leads me to believe that there may be varaitions in what copy of the lens you get. And if this is true, it would explain why some reviewers say it's head and shoulders over the 18-105 and other comparable zoom lenses, while others say it isn't. I always take similar shots with similar settings when trying out a new lens and when I put my first copy side by side with my present copy, there was a huge difference. I don't know if it was just a rare experience with me or there is something to it. But there is no question, my current 18-135 blew my 18-105 out of the water when it comes to stills. However, with my first copy, I would have totally agreed with this review. At least in regard to my copy I would have to agree with this reviewer: ua-cam.com/video/dT2_KbwETug/v-deo.html
At this point I want to thank you so much for all your unboxing, comparisons, tips and so on!!! Love to see it! 🙏🏼 After this comparison I bought the 18-105mm f4. Such a good lense!!!
Mr Arthur ur voice is so good helping me sleep easily at night.don’t get me wrong I m no5 being sarcastic or anything.seriously I like to fall sleep by watching your reviews..very helpful information as well
Thank you for your great reviews, comparisons and knowledge! I used your link for Amazon and just purchased the 18-105 f4. Looking forward to using it! All your videos are very insightful and like how they look. I look forward to posting a channel of my own in the future about guitar making that looks like yours. Thank you again!
I have both lenses and came to the same conclusion...the 18-135 is sharper 18 to approximately 60mm, the 18-105 is sharper 70 up to 105. The difference is quite noticeable on multiple tests I ran.
From what Sony promised before launch, i was expecting the 18-135 to perform a little bit better ("sharp edge to edge" that lens is not), especially since it's not really "cheap". Nice size, but the 18-105 still is the better lens.
I think Sony's main problem is that, for its price, the 18-105 simply is too good of a lens. The 18-135 isn't a bad lens at all relative to its price when you compare it to similar lenses from 5+ years ago, but the 18-105 is simply better in sharpness and contrast.
After watching your video first I wanted to bu 135 but then thought about the gimbal usage and decided to buy 105 ... ordered one now ... Thank you bro
I have the 18-105. This lens is very good after the 40-50mm. At the 18-40mm does not perform well. But right now for me, is the best all around lens for 540$
The constant aperture of the 18-105 might be better for zooming because it has power zooming. The 18-135 has manual zooming. However, the 18-105 is a G lens which supposedly means higher quality. That may be the 4 stops of OSS. I wonder why it does not have a focus mode selector. Maybe that is handled by the camera. The 105 is an older lens. Production started in 2013 as opposed to the 135 which started in 2018. I am confused. I think for my FX30, I would prefer the 105 because of the power zoom and the edge/corner clarity as pointed out in the video. It also has a software update which gives" improvement of focus tracking accuracy and stability". As a video first shooter, I would also like to know more about comparing the focus breathing between the two lenses. I appreciate the quality of your reviews.
Great reviee as always. I think I'm going to keep my 18-105. Was surprised the 18-135 opens up to f5.6 pretty low in the focal range. And the constant F4 works OK in low light if you are in a pinch and don't have time swap lenses or didn't bring any primes to shoot with.
Just wanted to say you convinced me to get the 18105 and I don't regret it. While it does have some strange perspective distortion, the overall image quality is super great. Thanks.
Paparazzi Entertainment hey I've the same set-up, but I'm having trouble figuring out the video settings can you please help me with it, much appreciated. Below is the video link. ua-cam.com/video/4rR3FiSYHTo/v-deo.html
The 18-105 is a great and often overlooked lens for sony apsc. It performs well, has smooth power zoom, constant aperture, great OSS and also looks great on the camera.
I just bought the 18-105 two months ago. I was upset to see that the 18-135 was coming out. But, after watching this video I’m happy with what I have and am going to stay with the 18-105. So much propaganda video out there saying the 18-105 wouldn’t compare (which isn’t the case at all!). Glad to see someone honest can help me to make a decision and save me money in the process. Thank you!
Hahahaha so true. That's what I was expecting! I thought the 18-135 would blow it away, but on the contrary at the end of the comparo I think the 18-105 is still the better all-rounder.
you don't need to compare them you can already tell the new lens kinda just sucks.. same focal range, no constant aperture, not internal zoom, and should u expect a super sharp lens at such "low" price point? No, so it's a useless lens come out for nothing :/
Because you doing more video then pictures, so you favour more the 18-105mm. It is normal for UA-cam demonstration. But the 18-135mm would be much better for my pictures need.
I've just recently came across your channel and subbed. I was hooked on the 135 but after seeing this video i've decided to go with the 105 based on your video comment. Great vid and thanks for the advice
5 years later and the 18-105mm f4 is still the most versatile zoom for Sony APS-C video. The constant f4, constant sharpness from center to corners, the power zoom, OSS, make it a great choice for all Sony APS-C cameras. I love that lens paired with the 10-18mm f4 OSS lens, then a few faster primes for low light.
I crop heavily because the middle is where I am focusing, therefore, corners don't matter to me and I only share the photos online. The 18-135mm was designed to replace the 16-50mm. Some have said that the 16-50mm is not good, however, as someone who only shoots landscapes, I have been able to get good shots with that lens also. As some have suggested, if you shoot manual, the shots might turn out a bit better. Thanks for giving us a comparison. I do already have the 18-105mm and the pictures turn out as I expected, my processing software does the rest. The 18-105mm stays on my a6400 most of the time.
For me, weight and size trumps almost everything so I'm very interested in the 18135. I think it'd be pretty much a perfect travel/kid activity friendly lens. I'm going to see how the prices shake down because $600 does seem like a lot for it but I think i'll end up picking one up.
Just broke my kit 16-50mm. Thanks for this video, I'll probably get the 18-105 because of the internal zoom for gimbal work. Power zoom helps when doing solo work and I can zoom in with my ipad.
Hello! It's very interesting video for me. Now I chose a lens for my a6000 to replace kit 16-50. And, I decided to buy 18-135, because it's less size. Thanks, my friend!
Thanks for the review. I'm a wedding photographer and just bought an A6500 to go alongside my two 5D MKIII's. I plan to use it as a holiday / family camera for photo and video and also for some wedding stuff. I really appreciate the time that goes into the lightroom comparisons - it's really helpful as I've been struggling to decide on 10-18, 16-70, 18-105 or 18-135. If the 10-18 was 10-30 that would be a no brainer for me - but it's not.
Thanks. I bought an mc-11 too so am planning a weekend of testing (weather permitting here in England) with the various Canon L / Sigma / and Tamron lenses I have, including the newish Tamron 24-70. Hoping for good things but I've watched your videos about the mc-11 so am not expecting miracles. Thanks again for all your videos, I've found them really useful.
Have had both for years since new. I just sold the 18-105. I use the 18-135 so much more. Lighter, sharper, and longer focus range make it more portable and usable. Constant aperture is nice, but both are bad in low light.
I got a black Friday deal on the A6400 +18-135 and also bought the 18-105 on sale. I just sold the 18-135 with a profit so now have the A6400 +18-105 combo for a very low price (though prices are higher in Europe). I preferred the 18-105 since I also want to shoot video with the A6400. I can imagine that photographers prefer the compact 18-135 but I was amazed by how much more premium the 18-105 looks and feels in comparison to the 18-135.
Excellent comparison. The 18-105 has better constrast in more details I see. The constant F4 is also just too good to overlook compared with the 18-135 with it's variable aperture.
Lover Of Tech, yeah, not quite a prime.... not even close. Anyway, I actually think I like the 18-135 more. Pretty impressive for the size/weight. The corners are a bit soft, but you're also looking at 100% crop.
LuLeBe, that f/3.5 you get is just at ~18mm. You zoom in a few millimeter and all of the sudden it's f/4+. However, don't dismiss a full stop of light, it's a big deal, especially on APS-C where you're already over a stop down compared to FF. If you only shoot in well lit situations then it may not matter that much, but if you don't then you have to compromise shutter speed or ISO performance (in photo/video).
Thank you for this! I was seriously considering the newer 18-135mm (primarily for size/weight) even though I already have the 18-105mm lens, but thanks to your review, I'll hang onto what I have for a while longer (and maybe upgrade to the A6600 from the A6000 - or even the A6700 if it is ever to be more than a rumor!).
Good job! I have the 18-105 and I like it. I guess I made the right choice.I don't understand why Sony came out with another mid range zoom anyway, but Nikon and Canon have different midrange zooms also. Sony, give us the 2.8 we want in the kit lens!!😀
To me the decision is easy. I don't see the big difference in size (I mean if you want a size difference look at the 16-50 kit lens), and I don't see the big difference in 105 vs 135 either. The big advantage of the 18-105 is the constant f/4. Sharpness is about the same.
Great real world comparison. I never shoot video and would pick the 18-135 for the size and weight. Would be curious, tho’, to see the 18-135 compared to the 16-70 Zeiss for travel and family shooting.
Many thanks for your great videos. I recently converted to an A6000 and your videos have been invaluable for choosing lenses. I am looking at possibly getting either the 18-135 or the 18-105 as a walk around lens - especially for when travelling. I have always used primes in the past, and currently have the Sigma 16 and the Sony 35. Never been much of fan of zooms and never used the kit lens that came with the A6000. However, I might get a zoom just for convenience. But I have noticed that when you have shown us the gear you normally carry, there is no zoom in it! Usually two or three primes. Does this mean you are not a fan of zooms? I also wonder if the price of the two Sony zooms is just too much - especially here in Australia, where they are almost double the US price.
Thanks for your generally great and objective reviews. As a long term Nikon user, looking to travel light for vacations, I'm a newcomer to Sony aps-c. I have found your channel helpful in guiding my lens choices. It's interesting to see how many commentators want/think their choice to be best. I honestly feel most lenses are OK and it really depends more on how you use a camera-lens as a photographer. I came to Sony 3 months ago buying the a6500 with bundled 16-70 f4. I agonised whether 18-105 or 18-135 would make a better choice. I believe each have their strengths. Zeiss badged lens does seem to have suffered from variable quality, if reports are correct (not unlike 'G' badged 18-105). I'm lucky my Zeiss 'kit' is pretty good, so for me it's a keeper - I can't justify either of the 18-105/135 tested here. I bought both Rokinon 12mm and Sigma 16mm f1.4 encouraged by your testing. Still wanted a bit more top end reach for travel use which was why I had considered one of zoom lenses tested here. Eventually decided that prime 85 f1.8 was a better copramise and compensated for any slight weakness in Zeiss 'kit' at 70mm end. Plus great bokeh, really sharp, good in low light and portable too. As a combo it doesn't quite have reach of 135mm, but I'm biased against Sony 55-210mm. Will continue using my Nikon for 200mm+ sports shots but forgo that weight, save my back, for most casual travel use. It seems to me that Sony don't really support their excellent aps-c format. Full frame is OK (I can do that just fine with my N kit) but surely 'small and light' with great aps-c quality has to be a serious consideration for many. Fortunately Sigma recognise the potential and offer lens support where Sony appear reticent. Keep up great reviews.
The 18-105 is a clear winner for me. I almost never run it at 18mm so im not too concerned with how soft it is (can always just up the appeture to sharpen things up), but the constant F4 for videography is a godsend, and internal zoom makes gymbal work a dream. Just wish it wasnt so bulky.
Thanks for this video - exactly what i was after, I do think the 18-135 looks sharper and better for travel. I mainly do video so not sure if that would be a problem. I currently have a 24-105 on my canon so tempted by the 18-105 but it is so heavy and me switching to sony is to get a lighter setup. I may wait for this to come down in price and get the smaller kit for now...
Excellent comparison, great to see both side by side. I've recently purchased the A6300 and want to replace the kit lens so I've considered 2 lens - the 18-135 and 16-70. Would you do a comparison video of those two please? Would be great to see how they compare as replacement kit lens. Thanks again for the great video and lens comparison.
I have both. Love the 18-135 but I did my first filming gig (novice non-professional). I could have really used a constant f4 and PZ. If using for video than the 18-105 is a must. Not sure if I'll keep the 135. Lightweight a.d sharp. I really need to test both photos side by side. The difference between 105-135 is not that noticeable so that wasnt taken into consideration for me.
Had both of these lens for a day and for sure 18-105 performs better with low light and constant aperture is a big plus. But when it comes to overall lens performance 18-135 is better, its OSS seem to be faster, lens weigh distribution & size is a lot better, its ability to quick zoom in & out is a plus. Regarding sharpness I would put both lens to be head to head. At the end of the day I kept 18-135 because f4 of other lens was still not good enough for low light photography and having a prime like 50mm f1.8 solves this issue.
I'm assuming these results are w/ lens corrections applied. If so, perhaps Sony will release firmware to better mitigate the C.A. w/ 18-135. I wouldn't hold my breath, though.
Been using both for a while now and have to say that i like the 18-135mm the Most. The 18-105mm has some difficulty to maintain focus while zooming. And getting focus perfectly is not as good as the 18-135mm on my a6400. I also dont like the powerzoom and the bigger size on the 18-105 even tho is looks more professional 😀 its also bigger and heavier but the biggest point for me was the autofocus issues ive had with the 18-105mm in video. For photo i would go for the 18-105 tho if you like that bokeh and lowlight performance while zoomed
Arthur R, excellent review as always! Thank you. I'm leaning toward the 18-135 here in January 2020. The 135 is currently $50 less expensive than the 18-105 on Amazon and for my use-case the 135's smaller size is a plus. largely based on your advice I very recently purchased the Sigma 16 1.4 for my a6000 and love it. I'm thinking the Sigma 16 and the Sony 18-135 will get me where I need to be.
I'll be getting the 18-105mm for event photography and video looks better, that and a fast prime would do a great job, most people in forums loving the 18-135 just shoot wildlife and casual photography with natural light that kind of looks to be the purpose for it
18-135 is very sharp at 18mm. That said, for portraits the F4 aperture is much better. So if you shoot mostly landscapes and do alot of traveling, go 18-135 (also for the size/weight), if you shoot more portraits and like to do alot of video the 18-105 is better for you.
Thank you for another excellent review and comparison. Recently started testing my a6500 with Viltrox EF-E II F booster with Tamron AF 28-75mm f/2.8 for FF Canon (Model A09E). After reducing focal lenght by 0.71 I was able to reach the range of 20 mm - 53 mm with continuous f/2.0. Unfortunately this is only fine for video with manual focus only (no AF-C). For pictures I can use a very slow and hunting AF-S mode or manual as well. After this review, I will keep my Sony 18-105 mm.
that sinking feeling you get, when you think you are about to find out you shouldn't have bought the 18-105 the week before, and then you find out you made the right decision!!!
It is normal for those who own 18-105mm is very good, they buy it is their choice, it was a very choice until this new one show up! But they don’t even try the new one to say 18-105mm is the best!!! I didn’t have either ones, now I have a choice, I was waiting for that new one to make a decision.
Get a Tamron 18-200. Bigger focal range, cheaper, good weight and size. IQ with these travel zooms is always good enough without being anywhere close to being pro quality.
For travel, the size and weight of the 18-135 is, IMO, significant. For those of us traveling with the 55-210, the next question is this: how is the 18-135 in comparison to the kit lens at 16-50 and the 55-210? In other words, for travel size sake, can we replace the 16-50 and 55-210 with the 18-135 for superior or equal quality (assuming you are ready to give up the extra reach from 135 to 210 in exchange for the space in your bag)
IMO 16-50 quality is equal to 18-105 at its sweet spot, so I would decide 16-50 rather than 18-105 because of its size. But for 55-210, its quality can't even compare to any of Sony lenses. So I would prefer 18-105 for an extra focal length from 16-50 with constant F4 aperture :D
Thanks mate, that answered my question! 18-105 it is!
Yeah me too
It is a great lens!
@Alfred Simon 😐bro what?
You miss 30mm!
serpentza is here? wow
I have been nothing but impressed with the 18-135, and it's compactness is a huge win for me, as that's one reason I got an APC camera. The 18-135 and the 1.8 35mm as a compact prime, covers all my needs so far.
Re-watching this video in July 2019. Your comment on the price of the 18-135 will come down and become close to the 18-105 was dead on. Good job! Always enjoy your videos, keep up the the good work.
Peak edge to edge sharpness for the 18-105 is f5.6 at 18mm, and f8 at 105mm. The aperture is going to affect the sharpness more than the focal length; just something to keep in mind when comparing lenses like this.
Using 18-135 with A6400! Mostly using it for photos. I love it is so compact!!
I am also enjoing A6400 with 18-135, Great joy.
How is it for video?
@@s5hanom979 I only used it on a tripod. The quality is not so bad.
@@IRFAN-po5sz could you tell me what seeting you have set for photographs?
I’ve been waiting for this review! I’ve decided to just go with the 18-105.
Thanks for doing this comparison. I couldn't decide between these two and wound up taking a chance with the 18-135. I love it and your review shows me that I'm not really missing anything with the 18-105. Not into making videos so the 18-135 is perfect for me....Your reviews are great.
Ron, even with video's, you're fine. The problem is only for those shooting full manual. Anyone doing that wouldn't be using either of these lenses.
Wow! This result is really amazing,
I thought that the quality of the G lens will be better than the 135 lens, but it seems that each has its own advantages.
Thank you for taking this video! And your conclusion is also great, it is very useful to me.
Many thanks Arthur. I bought 18-105 for the interview video. Camera a6600.
If I had the 18-105 I likely wouldn't change but since I don't I'm going for the 18-135 for my a6000. As a hiker who never gets out without a camera, the weight savings alone makes the decision a no-brainer. And that it's a try 18mm for landscapes is also a deciding factor. I am so glad I waited for this lens.
I was so hooked on the comparison and was bashing my head out with the whole photo comparison progress and then you dropped that 105 was superior for video and all my problems went away.
You catched all the important points that I was interested for.
• The comparison of the photo quality of both lenses.
• And the point about the video.
Your video helped me to make a decision.
Thank you
So what you got . 18-105 OR 18-135
@@IRFAN-po5sz I decided for 18-105, because the light sensitivy stays always at 4. Means, it doesn´t getting lighter or darker, if you´re zooming. And it´s perfect for videos. If you zoom, it´s always smooth. Zoom is also controlable by remote control.
The zoom at 18-135 is not controlable by remote control.
The f4.0 is enough reason for me to buy the 105
Just what im looking for, for a comparison. I think i would go with the 18-135 as my "go to" lens. Thanks for this video, very helpful
Thanks, got the answer I was looking for. Excellent side-by-side comparison.
I am glad to see this video and I think I made decision - 18-105 mm f/4. Two main advantages; constant aperture and constant lens length (for video and gimbal use). Aside that, it is good that 18-105 is sharper at the edges, although not an issue for video, especially during panning. Thanks.
I've had the 18-105 on my a6000 for 1.5 years now. It has been a great everyday carry/travel lens. Love it.
Oh! You live in Austin. I’m not sure how I missed that in all of your previous videos. Always great to see the 360 bridge in photos (I now live in Dallas and miss Austin a lot). Great review on the two lenses. I own the 18-105 and noticed a huge jump in quality over the 55-210 I had bought previously. Much bigger difference than the 18-135 which I also considered buying at the time. I opted for the 18-105 for the video capabilities you mentioned. Thanks for the great review as always!
- 18-135mm is sharper in the range of 18-50mm while 18-105mm is sharper in in the range of 70-100mm.
- 18-105mm is definitely better for video because of constant f/4 aperture and power zoom in/out
Though not sure how much close we can get for the extra 30mm. I would also suggest you to compare this in your videos as that is also another factor to decide.
I like how you showed the difference doing video. This really helped me decide on which one I need. Thank you
So what you got . 18-105 OR 18-135
Lol...neither one but they are options. I just got a sigma 30mm.
Am glad that I bought the 18-105.
Cieszę się, że trafiłem na ten kanał, teraz mogę podjąć decyzję, który obiektyw kupić, tym razem większe znaczy lepsze 😀
I finally went for the 18-135mm and am very happy with it. I knew for the start that the different between constant apreture vs variable. But honestly, I don't think any one would shot within one video have to zoom between 18mm-135mm very often. At least to me almost never happen In contrast, the form factor has a ignificant impact. I would much enjoy a small size/weight and it's a benefit that you have all the time. So instead of worrying F/4 vs F3.5-5.6 (it's not a huge different anyway), better to get a 18-135mm. At least I definitely felt it's a right choice for me.
I just bought this lens and it is superb for an ALL IN 1 LENS to go for my travel vlog! Nice video man!
I’ve been watching you for a while now and appreciate your experience and opinions - your wife is a saint! All of that micro examination :) she’s def a keeper!
Thank you so much for the time you take comparing all these lenses. You really made things very easy for me in my lens selections.
Thanks for the video! We are all waiting for a comparison sony and tamron 18-200, sony 18-135, 18-105 !
Thank you! I must confess just looking at the first two images I was blown away by the difference in colour and in contrast. Although I must confess the 18-135 mm seems to be a better option just looking at the lens, not the price tag, with a little more reach, smaller format and while the photos show it may be a little sharper at the wide end. The colour and contrast makes me want to go for the 18-105 mm, do doubt about it!
Thank you so much! That was SO helpful in deciding which lens to purchase!
So what you got . 18-105 OR 18-135
Thank you so much for your videos. They have been extremely helpful in making decisions. Tell your wife thank you as well! Bless her for being you subject in everything. She's a champion.
I received the 18-135 two weeks ago, tried it out, and found it wasn't as good as my 18-105. So sent it back. Gave it another try and ordered another 18-135 lens and this time the stills blew me away. Much sharper than my 18-105. This leads me to believe that there may be varaitions in what copy of the lens you get. And if this is true, it would explain why some reviewers say it's head and shoulders over the 18-105 and other comparable zoom lenses, while others say it isn't. I always take similar shots with similar settings when trying out a new lens and when I put my first copy side by side with my present copy, there was a huge difference. I don't know if it was just a rare experience with me or there is something to it. But there is no question, my current 18-135 blew my 18-105 out of the water when it comes to stills. However, with my first copy, I would have totally agreed with this review. At least in regard to my copy I would have to agree with this reviewer: ua-cam.com/video/dT2_KbwETug/v-deo.html
The constant f4 was my driving decision here to get the 105. However I do really like the idea of the weight on the 135.
Finally, I get my answer. Thanks for the compact explanation.
At this point I want to thank you so much for all your unboxing, comparisons, tips and so on!!! Love to see it! 🙏🏼
After this comparison I bought the 18-105mm f4. Such a good lense!!!
How is it a good lens? It only achieves an f/4.0. A good lens would be at an f/2.8 like the new Sony GMaster 24-70 f/2.8.
RageCage1701 for its price, it’s a good lens. It’s not exceptional at any one thing, but does everything pretty well.
@@RageCage1701 sucker !
Mr Arthur ur voice is so good helping me sleep easily at night.don’t get me wrong I m no5 being sarcastic or anything.seriously I like to fall sleep by watching your reviews..very helpful information as well
Thank you for your great reviews, comparisons and knowledge! I used your link for Amazon and just purchased the 18-105 f4. Looking forward to using it! All your videos are very insightful and like how they look. I look forward to posting a channel of my own in the future about guitar making that looks like yours. Thank you again!
Looking for to add a lens to my a6000 this was very helpful! ☺️
I have both lenses and came to the same conclusion...the 18-135 is sharper 18 to approximately 60mm, the 18-105 is sharper 70 up to 105. The difference is quite noticeable on multiple tests I ran.
How is the lense 18-200?
@@AliImranMalik 18200 non le version is quiet behind 18105 wideopen
From what Sony promised before launch, i was expecting the 18-135 to perform a little bit better ("sharp edge to edge" that lens is not), especially since it's not really "cheap". Nice size, but the 18-105 still is the better lens.
I think Sony's main problem is that, for its price, the 18-105 simply is too good of a lens. The 18-135 isn't a bad lens at all relative to its price when you compare it to similar lenses from 5+ years ago, but the 18-105 is simply better in sharpness and contrast.
After watching your video first I wanted to bu 135 but then thought about the gimbal usage and decided to buy 105 ... ordered one now ... Thank you bro
I have the 18-105. This lens is very good after the 40-50mm. At the 18-40mm does not perform well. But right now for me, is the best all around lens for 540$
The constant aperture of the 18-105 might be better for zooming because it has power zooming. The 18-135 has manual zooming.
However, the 18-105 is a G lens which supposedly means higher quality. That may be the 4 stops of OSS. I wonder why it does not have a focus mode selector. Maybe that is handled by the camera.
The 105 is an older lens. Production started in 2013 as opposed to the 135 which started in 2018.
I am confused. I think for my FX30, I would prefer the 105 because of the power zoom and the edge/corner clarity as pointed out in the video. It also has a software update which gives" improvement of focus tracking accuracy and stability".
As a video first shooter, I would also like to know more about comparing the focus breathing between the two lenses.
I appreciate the quality of your reviews.
Just order the 18-105.👌
Jorge Miranda too xd
16 70
Agree 👌
18-135 ya 18-105 best lens
That bridge was my Windows lock screen today!
Great reviee as always. I think I'm going to keep my 18-105. Was surprised the 18-135 opens up to f5.6 pretty low in the focal range. And the constant F4 works OK in low light if you are in a pinch and don't have time swap lenses or didn't bring any primes to shoot with.
Just wanted to say you convinced me to get the 18105 and I don't regret it. While it does have some strange perspective distortion, the overall image quality is super great. Thanks.
Im relief buying the right one (18-105), but I still want to try the 18-135 by the way
Thanks for the review I'm going to stick with my 18-105 LOL in my opinion not worth changing I only use my A6500 for video I love the 18-105
Paparazzi Entertainment hey I've the same set-up, but I'm having trouble figuring out the video settings can you please help me with it, much appreciated. Below is the video link.
ua-cam.com/video/4rR3FiSYHTo/v-deo.html
The 18-105 is a great and often overlooked lens for sony apsc. It performs well, has smooth power zoom, constant aperture, great OSS and also looks great on the camera.
I never thought of it as an "overlooked lens"..... I have it and I love it.
That’s fine because 18-105mm is mainly and first a video lens, but not the 18-135mm.
I just bought the 18-105 two months ago. I was upset to see that the 18-135 was coming out. But, after watching this video I’m happy with what I have and am going to stay with the 18-105. So much propaganda video out there saying the 18-105 wouldn’t compare (which isn’t the case at all!). Glad to see someone honest can help me to make a decision and save me money in the process. Thank you!
Hahahaha so true. That's what I was expecting! I thought the 18-135 would blow it away, but on the contrary at the end of the comparo I think the 18-105 is still the better all-rounder.
you don't need to compare them you can already tell the new lens kinda just sucks.. same focal range, no constant aperture, not internal zoom, and should u expect a super sharp lens at such "low" price point? No, so it's a useless lens come out for nothing :/
Nick Marino a bit of a relief??
kelly eldridge yes absolutely!
Because you doing more video then pictures, so you favour more the 18-105mm. It is normal for UA-cam demonstration. But the 18-135mm would be much better for my pictures need.
I've just recently came across your channel and subbed. I was hooked on the 135 but after seeing this video i've decided to go with the 105 based on your video comment. Great vid and thanks for the advice
Got the a6400 with the 18-135 as the kit lens, both look amazing and the money saved is worth it to me!
is it worth to buy 18-135mm.
i bought sony a6400 and confused to buy which zoom lens for it.
Sudip Bholon Yea, get the 18-135
@@BavleoENG 18-105mm F4 is better though.
Only buy the 18-135mm if you get it cheap in a combination with the a6400
Peter Müller I own the 18-105mm and never regret it. Its my Go everyday use lens. Super👌
@@BavleoENG 18-105 or 18-135? I have the 18-105 too and I love the bokeh at 105mm:) also my videos lens(bought it on February this year)
Brother, THAT was an amazing comparison video, thank you so much!
5 years later and the 18-105mm f4 is still the most versatile zoom for Sony APS-C video. The constant f4, constant sharpness from center to corners, the power zoom, OSS, make it a great choice for all Sony APS-C cameras. I love that lens paired with the 10-18mm f4 OSS lens, then a few faster primes for low light.
Ccheaper, better, you just proved it. yes, I have 18-105!! Always like your videos when your wife's in there as a model. Thank you always, too.
This guy.
I crop heavily because the middle is where I am focusing, therefore, corners don't matter to me and I only share the photos online. The 18-135mm was designed to replace the 16-50mm. Some have said that the 16-50mm is not good, however, as someone who only shoots landscapes, I have been able to get good shots with that lens also. As some have suggested, if you shoot manual, the shots might turn out a bit better. Thanks for giving us a comparison. I do already have the 18-105mm and the pictures turn out as I expected, my processing software does the rest. The 18-105mm stays on my a6400 most of the time.
I chose the 18-105 and hit the gym. Problem solved.
For me, weight and size trumps almost everything so I'm very interested in the 18135. I think it'd be pretty much a perfect travel/kid activity friendly lens. I'm going to see how the prices shake down because $600 does seem like a lot for it but I think i'll end up picking one up.
I think it's a fair price, but have you been able to grab it cheaper? Also agree with you regarding size/weight for travel.
Just broke my kit 16-50mm. Thanks for this video, I'll probably get the 18-105 because of the internal zoom for gimbal work. Power zoom helps when doing solo work and I can zoom in with my ipad.
Thanks a lot. Nice review. Really helped me to make a decision. I will buy the 18-105 g.
Hello!
It's very interesting video for me.
Now I chose a lens for my a6000 to replace kit 16-50.
And, I decided to buy 18-135, because it's less size.
Thanks, my friend!
Thank you! You definitely made up my mind to get the right one for video.
Thank you for a good review. I am happy that I chose the 18-135 You just confirmed that it was the right choice for me.
Thanks for the review. I'm a wedding photographer and just bought an A6500 to go alongside my two 5D MKIII's. I plan to use it as a holiday / family camera for photo and video and also for some wedding stuff. I really appreciate the time that goes into the lightroom comparisons - it's really helpful as I've been struggling to decide on 10-18, 16-70, 18-105 or 18-135. If the 10-18 was 10-30 that would be a no brainer for me - but it's not.
Out of your list, 18-105. I have tried them all and the 16-70 and 10-18 were both disappointing.
Thanks. I bought an mc-11 too so am planning a weekend of testing (weather permitting here in England) with the various Canon L / Sigma / and Tamron lenses I have, including the newish Tamron 24-70. Hoping for good things but I've watched your videos about the mc-11 so am not expecting miracles. Thanks again for all your videos, I've found them really useful.
Just bought the 18-105, for 340 Euros - used one, but from a local photo gear store (1 year warranty)!
Great choice!
This video is really helpful in choosing my next lens! Thank you so much :)
Have had both for years since new. I just sold the 18-105. I use the 18-135 so much more. Lighter, sharper, and longer focus range make it more portable and usable. Constant aperture is nice, but both are bad in low light.
I got a black Friday deal on the A6400 +18-135 and also bought the 18-105 on sale. I just sold the 18-135 with a profit so now have the A6400 +18-105 combo for a very low price (though prices are higher in Europe). I preferred the 18-105 since I also want to shoot video with the A6400.
I can imagine that photographers prefer the compact 18-135 but I was amazed by how much more premium the 18-105 looks and feels in comparison to the 18-135.
Excellent comparison. The 18-105 has better constrast in more details I see. The constant F4 is also just too good to overlook compared with the 18-135 with it's variable aperture.
And 18-105 also gives you less chromatic aberration in video and photo as well.
PIYUSH SAINGER Agree. I'm surprised to see it perform that well against chromatic aberration also. Very little CA compared to the 18-135.
Vintage Pictures the constant F4 practically makes it a prime lens at different focal lengths which is just awesome
Lover Of Tech, yeah, not quite a prime.... not even close. Anyway, I actually think I like the 18-135 more. Pretty impressive for the size/weight. The corners are a bit soft, but you're also looking at 100% crop.
LuLeBe, that f/3.5 you get is just at ~18mm. You zoom in a few millimeter and all of the sudden it's f/4+. However, don't dismiss a full stop of light, it's a big deal, especially on APS-C where you're already over a stop down compared to FF. If you only shoot in well lit situations then it may not matter that much, but if you don't then you have to compromise shutter speed or ISO performance (in photo/video).
Thank you for this! I was seriously considering the newer 18-135mm (primarily for size/weight) even though I already have the 18-105mm lens, but thanks to your review, I'll hang onto what I have for a while longer (and maybe upgrade to the A6600 from the A6000 - or even the A6700 if it is ever to be more than a rumor!).
Great video. Love that part of Austin. The cliffs and lakes/rivers are stunning.
You can have constant brightness with the 18-135, just stop it down to f5.6 and it will give you constant brightness throughout the zoom.
Very good comparison, thank you! It makes me even more wanting to buy the Sigma 16mm 1,4 and Sony 50mm 1.8 OSS primes together with a new A6300 :)
Recently picked up the 18-105 G OSS for $380 on ebay!! Love this lens
Good job! I have the 18-105 and I like it. I guess I made the right choice.I don't understand why Sony came out with another mid range zoom anyway, but Nikon and Canon have different midrange zooms also. Sony, give us the 2.8 we want in the kit lens!!😀
To me the decision is easy. I don't see the big difference in size (I mean if you want a size difference look at the 16-50 kit lens), and I don't see the big difference in 105 vs 135 either. The big advantage of the 18-105 is the constant f/4. Sharpness is about the same.
Adam Craig that way you don’t have to adjust exposure every time you zoom in and out
With constant aperture, the exposure will not change while changing focal length.
For the size, I think even though the 18-105 is a little bigger it still looks nicer on the camera because of the design.
Great real world comparison. I never shoot video and would pick the 18-135 for the size and weight. Would be curious, tho’, to see the 18-135 compared to the 16-70 Zeiss for travel and family shooting.
Thank you for this review........18-105 is good enough for me no change needed thank god :-}
Many thanks for your great videos. I recently converted to an A6000 and your videos have been invaluable for choosing lenses. I am looking at possibly getting either the 18-135 or the 18-105 as a walk around lens - especially for when travelling. I have always used primes in the past, and currently have the Sigma 16 and the Sony 35. Never been much of fan of zooms and never used the kit lens that came with the A6000. However, I might get a zoom just for convenience.
But I have noticed that when you have shown us the gear you normally carry, there is no zoom in it! Usually two or three primes. Does this mean you are not a fan of zooms?
I also wonder if the price of the two Sony zooms is just too much - especially here in Australia, where they are almost double the US price.
I think I'll go for the 18-135. It's a little cheaper and it's small for travel!
Both great lenses, tough decision.
that lens is more expensive in my country
Thanks for your generally great and objective reviews. As a long term Nikon user, looking to travel light for vacations, I'm a newcomer to Sony aps-c. I have found your channel helpful in guiding my lens choices. It's interesting to see how many commentators want/think their choice to be best. I honestly feel most lenses are OK and it really depends more on how you use a camera-lens as a photographer.
I came to Sony 3 months ago buying the a6500 with bundled 16-70 f4. I agonised whether 18-105 or 18-135 would make a better choice. I believe each have their strengths. Zeiss badged lens does seem to have suffered from variable quality, if reports are correct (not unlike 'G' badged 18-105). I'm lucky my Zeiss 'kit' is pretty good, so for me it's a keeper - I can't justify either of the 18-105/135 tested here.
I bought both Rokinon 12mm and Sigma 16mm f1.4 encouraged by your testing. Still wanted a bit more top end reach for travel use which was why I had considered one of zoom lenses tested here. Eventually decided that prime 85 f1.8 was a better copramise and compensated for any slight weakness in Zeiss 'kit' at 70mm end. Plus great bokeh, really sharp, good in low light and portable too. As a combo it doesn't quite have reach of 135mm, but I'm biased against Sony 55-210mm. Will continue using my Nikon for 200mm+ sports shots but forgo that weight, save my back, for most casual travel use.
It seems to me that Sony don't really support their excellent aps-c format. Full frame is OK (I can do that just fine with my N kit) but surely 'small and light' with great aps-c quality has to be a serious consideration for many. Fortunately Sigma recognise the potential and offer lens support where Sony appear reticent.
Keep up great reviews.
The 18-105 is a clear winner for me. I almost never run it at 18mm so im not too concerned with how soft it is (can always just up the appeture to sharpen things up), but the constant F4 for videography is a godsend, and internal zoom makes gymbal work a dream.
Just wish it wasnt so bulky.
Thanks for this video - exactly what i was after, I do think the 18-135 looks sharper and better for travel. I mainly do video so not sure if that would be a problem. I currently have a 24-105 on my canon so tempted by the 18-105 but it is so heavy and me switching to sony is to get a lighter setup. I may wait for this to come down in price and get the smaller kit for now...
The image FOV looks a wider on the 18-135 - I like the colours on the 18-105, warmer :)
Excellent comparison, great to see both side by side. I've recently purchased the A6300 and want to replace the kit lens so I've considered 2 lens - the 18-135 and 16-70. Would you do a comparison video of those two please? Would be great to see how they compare as replacement kit lens. Thanks again for the great video and lens comparison.
I have both. Love the 18-135 but I did my first filming gig (novice non-professional). I could have really used a constant f4 and PZ. If using for video than the 18-105 is a must. Not sure if I'll keep the 135. Lightweight a.d sharp. I really need to test both photos side by side. The difference between 105-135 is not that noticeable so that wasnt taken into consideration for me.
Had both of these lens for a day and for sure 18-105 performs better with low light and constant aperture is a big plus. But when it comes to overall lens performance 18-135 is better, its OSS seem to be faster, lens weigh distribution & size is a lot better, its ability to quick zoom in & out is a plus. Regarding sharpness I would put both lens to be head to head.
At the end of the day I kept 18-135 because f4 of other lens was still not good enough for low light photography and having a prime like 50mm f1.8 solves this issue.
I'm surprised at the amount of CA that's in the 18-105. Great comparison, you beat me to it! My 18-105 is still lent out..... Soon!
I was expecting almost no CA with the 18-135, so I was very surprised!
I'm assuming these results are w/ lens corrections applied. If so, perhaps Sony will release firmware to better mitigate the C.A. w/ 18-135. I wouldn't hold my breath, though.
Been using both for a while now and have to say that i like the 18-135mm the Most. The 18-105mm has some difficulty to maintain focus while zooming. And getting focus perfectly is not as good as the 18-135mm on my a6400. I also dont like the powerzoom and the bigger size on the 18-105 even tho is looks more professional 😀 its also bigger and heavier but the biggest point for me was the autofocus issues ive had with the 18-105mm in video. For photo i would go for the 18-105 tho if you like that bokeh and lowlight performance while zoomed
Arthur R, excellent review as always! Thank you.
I'm leaning toward the 18-135 here in January 2020. The 135 is currently $50 less expensive than the 18-105 on Amazon and for my use-case the 135's smaller size is a plus. largely based on your advice I very recently purchased the Sigma 16 1.4 for my a6000 and love it. I'm thinking the Sigma 16 and the Sony 18-135 will get me where I need to be.
Christopher Mitchell I have the Sigma 16 and am thinking the same as you 18-135.
I'll be getting the 18-105mm for event photography and video looks better, that and a fast prime would do a great job, most people in forums loving the 18-135 just shoot wildlife and casual photography with natural light that kind of looks to be the purpose for it
Nice video 135mm it is the better....but today i will buy 105mm,because it is my style!
18-135 is very sharp at 18mm. That said, for portraits the F4 aperture is much better. So if you shoot mostly landscapes and do alot of traveling, go 18-135 (also for the size/weight), if you shoot more portraits and like to do alot of video the 18-105 is better for you.
Thank you for this video, it really helped me choose which I should buy
Thank you for another excellent review and comparison.
Recently started testing my a6500 with Viltrox EF-E II F booster with Tamron AF 28-75mm f/2.8 for FF Canon (Model A09E).
After reducing focal lenght by 0.71 I was able to reach the range of 20 mm - 53 mm with continuous f/2.0. Unfortunately this is only fine for video with manual focus only (no AF-C). For pictures I can use a very slow and hunting AF-S mode or manual as well.
After this review, I will keep my Sony 18-105 mm.
that sinking feeling you get, when you think you are about to find out you shouldn't have bought the 18-105 the week before, and then you find out you made the right decision!!!
Hahahahahaha
It is normal for those who own 18-105mm is very good, they buy it is their choice, it was a very choice until this new one show up! But they don’t even try the new one to say 18-105mm is the best!!! I didn’t have either ones, now I have a choice, I was waiting for that new one to make a decision.
Get a Tamron 18-200. Bigger focal range, cheaper, good weight and size. IQ with these travel zooms is always good enough without being anywhere close to being pro quality.
No shit. I had a sinking feeling as well. I just got the 18-105 2 days ago. Honestly it should be better being a G lens imo. I like the f4.
Thank you for the review and comparisson, its helpful to make a decision.
Well done, this is the lens comparison we've been looking for. Still can't decide what to buy though :-)
This review was fantastic! Thank you!
For travel, the size and weight of the 18-135 is, IMO, significant. For those of us traveling with the 55-210, the next question is this: how is the 18-135 in comparison to the kit lens at 16-50 and the 55-210? In other words, for travel size sake, can we replace the 16-50 and 55-210 with the 18-135 for superior or equal quality (assuming you are ready to give up the extra reach from 135 to 210 in exchange for the space in your bag)
IMO 16-50 quality is equal to 18-105 at its sweet spot, so I would decide 16-50 rather than 18-105 because of its size. But for 55-210, its quality can't even compare to any of Sony lenses. So I would prefer 18-105 for an extra focal length from 16-50 with constant F4 aperture :D
I compared the 18-135 to the 55-210 and the 18-135 was noticeably better.
Should i buy 18-135 as a kit lens or buy 18-105 seperately.
18 105